Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[bsd058 296]

I think you missing the point. If the government can mandate liability insurance for a product in your home that doesn't leave your home the precedent is set to require liability insurance in a private home whether you have a firearm or not. There ARE more dangerous products in the home than firearms after all.

Like what?

Also a firearm doesn't have to leave your home for a bullet to.

Edited December 21, 2012 by bsd058

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

So there is uninsured mororist coverage because many people don't obey the laws, will every person have to carry uninsured gunowners coverage because I doubt someone that is of the mindset to shoot up a school/mall/??? will really care if their gunowners insurance is current.

[bsd058 296]

So there is uninsured mororist coverage because many people don't obey the laws, will every person have to carry uninsured gunowners coverage because I doubt someone that is of the mindset to shoot up a school/mall/??? will really care if their gunowners insurance is current.

True. It ain't foolproof. And this is a good point.

Edited December 21, 2012 by bsd058

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Like what?

Also a firearm doesn't have to leave your home for a bullet to.

Ping Pong.....

I'm joking on that but this guy isn't lol .......http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-lawmaker-ping-pongs-deadlier-guns-211551404--politics.html

Probably one of the most dangerous things in the home is the swimming pool.

If society wants to mandate homeowners carry liability insurance, I guess they can try. You have a pool, your rate jumps 10%. You have more safety devices than code requires, you get a small deduction. You have a firearm, your rate jumps 10%. You have a biometric safe, you get a small deduction etc.

I don't personally believe in mandating such insurance and don't think it will survive any court but so be it.

I personally do carry liability insurance btw. but think it should be a persons choice.

[himher 634]

I wonder what is it about liberal leftists and their obsession from profiting some way, either financially or politically, from a gun tragedy

[Dakine10 5,452]

I wonder what is it about liberal leftists and their obsession from profiting some way, either financially or politically, from a gun tragedy

I've been wondering the same thing about the nazi right wingers. Kind of a selfish crowd when the response to every scenario in life begins with "me me me".

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I've been wondering the same thing about the nazi right wingers. Kind of a selfish crowd when the response to every scenario in life begins with "me me me".

If you ever worked for a living, you would understand.

[Dakine10 5,452]

If you ever worked for a living, you would understand.

I'll never understand you gun nuts. Why can't you compromise Bill?

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'll never understand you gun nuts. Why can't you compromise Bill?

Libtards don't want compromise. You want control. Try selling it to someone else, we know those aren't really chocolates.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This isn't going to happen but the gun control bukkake continues.

It also could not possibly prevent crime/violence any more than car insurance prevents accidents or fllod insurance prevents floods. Any attempt to explain a practical reason for this is ludicrous

The reason for these proposals is simple...

1. Increase the complexity/expense of exercising your RIGHTS

2. Reduce the number of people exercising their rights

3. Reduce the political influence of people exercising their rights

4. Take away our rights.

5. Increase power held by government

The same people that propose this are against any such prerequisites on the "right" to an abortion, the right of free speech, the "right" to gay marriage or the "right" to health care (except abortion) They oppose showing ID in order to vote, but think I should have to pay for insurance to own a gun. They want increase minimum wages but look the other way when minimum wage is ignored by hiring illegal aliens. It all makes the same amount of sense.

It is far too stupid for people with functional brains to discuss.

The NRA has it right. Put armed people in our schools to protect our children. It does not work to have to make a phone call to bring good people with guns to the scene. There just needs to be one there.

As a gun owner I would not be opposed to an excise tax on the sale of firearms to help pay for this, the same way we pay an excise tax (11%) on firearms and ammunition to support wildlife management. I think the NRA would be very wise to propose this as the gun owners contribution to a serious discussion of how to make children safe.

This insurance stuff is just nonsense.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I'm just trying to figure out what "gun control" bukkake might look like. That's some super-niche porn.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This isn't going to happen but the gun control bukkake continues.

It also could not possibly prevent crime/violence any more than car insurance prevents accidents or fllod insurance prevents floods. Any attempt to explain a practical reason for this is ludicrous

The reason for these proposals is simple...

1. Increase the complexity/expense of exercising your RIGHTS

2. Reduce the number of people exercising their rights

3. Reduce the political influence of people exercising their rights

4. Take away our rights.

5. Increase power held by government

The same people that propose this are against any such prerequisites on the "right" to an abortion, the right of free speech, the "right" to gay marriage or the "right" to health care (except abortion) They oppose showing ID in order to vote, but think I should have to pay for insurance to own a gun. They want increase minimum wages but look the other way when minimum wage is ignored by hiring illegal aliens. It all makes the same amount of sense.

It is far too stupid for people with functional brains to discuss.

The NRA has it right. Put armed people in our schools to protect our children. It does not work to have to make a phone call to bring good people with guns to the scene. There just needs to be one there.

As a gun owner I would not be opposed to an excise tax on the sale of firearms to help pay for this, the same way we pay an excise tax (11%) on firearms and ammunition to support wildlife management. I think the NRA would be very wise to propose this as the gun owners contribution to a serious discussion of how to make children safe.

This insurance stuff is just nonsense.

Amen

[Dakine10 5,452]

Libtards don't want compromise. You want control. Try selling it to someone else, we know those aren't really chocolates.

Actually it's repubtards who want control. That's why they need guns. Must be a shitty life when guns are more important to you than people. But hey, to each their own.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Dakine10

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Actually it's repubtards who want control. That's why they need guns. Must be a shitty life when guns are more important to you than people. But hey, to each their own.

Funny that. I haven't seen the Republicans trying to mess with the Constitution and I don't see the Republicans making law after law after law after after law. No Republicans banning anything that Iv'e seen. LWN's need new laws for every thing. It's like they can't make enough new laws to satisfy themselves. Of course all these laws cost and maybe that's why they like to tax, tax, tax. Someone has to pay the tab for Socialism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Funny that. I haven't seen the Republicans trying to mess with the Constitution and I don't [blah, blah, blah]

Abortion, censorship, three strikes, wiretapping, etc.